On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 12:38:50AM +0200, Ori Idan wrote:
Yes, but most AT compliant PCI modems today are software only.
Someone gave me an Intel modem clone. It sat in junk box until I broke
down and installed a UPS, which took over the only
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 12:38:50AM +0200, Ori Idan wrote:
> Yes, but most AT compliant PCI modems today are software only.
Someone gave me an Intel modem clone. It sat in junk box until I broke
down and installed a UPS, which took over the only serial port I had
on that computer.
I stuck the mod
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Amos Shapira wrote:
> On 06/02/07, Diego Iastrubni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> ×××× ×©× × 05 פ×ר××ר 2007, 22:50, × ××ª× ×¢× ××× Oded
> Arbel:
>> > > Can this be done from Linux?
>> >
>> > http://cables2.netvision.net.il/linux/
>> He is using dialup.
>>
>
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Oded Arbel wrote:
You seem to imply that with off-the-record, both a third party that has
access to the entire session can prove the identity of at least one side
of it (destroying deniability) and that on a second session one cannot
be assured of the identity of the other p
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Aviram Jenik wrote:
On Monday 05 February 2007 13:15, Peter wrote:
certain MUAs
implicitly sign the message by calculating a hash sum over the message and
certain key parameters in it and making it unique to the sending machine
and to the time and network it was sent at/on.
On 06/02/07, Ori Idan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, but most AT compliant PCI modems today are software only.
Surely it's possible to get hardware-based modem:
http://search.ebay.com/pci-modem_W0QQfkrZ1QQfromZR8QQsubmitsearchZSearch
--Amos
Yes, but most AT compliant PCI modems today are software only.
--
Ori Idan
On 2/6/07, Amos Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 06/02/07, Diego Iastrubni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ביום שני 05 פברואר 2007, 22:50, נכתב על ידי Oded Arbel:
> > > Can this be done from Linux?
> >
> > http://c
On 06/02/07, Diego Iastrubni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ביום שני 05 פברואר 2007, 22:50, נכתב על ידי Oded Arbel:
> > Can this be done from Linux?
>
> http://cables2.netvision.net.il/linux/
He is using dialup.
goto http://linmodems.org and google for more information. Also subscribe
to
their list
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Oded Arbel wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 12:20 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last time I checked, and this was awhile ago, it was only possible to dial
into Netvision with a (Windows) program provided by Netvision.
I don't know that there ever was a time when this was
You can probably sync it the same way I sync my Nokia phone.
In KBluetooth, I've set up a script to run every time my Bluetooth phone
comes in range.
The script runs "obex-ftp" to download the magic file "telecom/pb.vcf" from
the phone. This is a file in the standard VCF format. You can add the VC
ביום שני 05 פברואר 2007, 22:50, נכתב על ידי Oded Arbel:
> > Can this be done from Linux?
>
> http://cables2.netvision.net.il/linux/
He is using dialup.
goto http://linmodems.org and google for more information. Also subscribe to
their list and ask for more help. This is one of the darker places
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 12:20 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Last time I checked, and this was awhile ago, it was only possible to dial
> into Netvision with a (Windows) program provided by Netvision.
I don't know that there ever was a time when this was correct.
> Can this be done from Linux?
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 21:24 +0200, Peter wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Oded Arbel wrote:
>
> > That doesn't work with simple session only encryption, and what I don't
> > understand is how they both offer assurance and deniability, if the next
> > time I'm talking with the same guy I can be assured
My parents use an ancient Windows PC to dial into their Netvision account and
read their Netvision email using Netvision's email system.
Their computer is very tempermental, so I'd love to replace it with a simple
Linux computer to increase reliability and reduce space.
Last time I checked, and
Sorry for asking a Linux question on the privacy mailing list (or is it
paranoid inc?).
Does anybody know how to synchronize kaddressbook with Motorola Razr phone?
Extra bonus if it works for KOrganizer too.
Gnokii doesn't work for obvious reasons and all the moto4lin style utils only
tell me
On Monday 05 February 2007 13:15, Peter wrote:
> certain MUAs
> implicitly sign the message by calculating a hash sum over the message and
> certain key parameters in it and making it unique to the sending machine
> and to the time and network it was sent at/on. By your definition then, ALL
How
In reply to everyone and to end this long thread: Thank you. Mission completed.
I ended up following Chaim advice and buying very cool "usb2usb
network connection cable", which if you continue reading will find out
that was ultimately unnecessary.
The story starts from the "windows" server side,
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Oded Arbel wrote:
That doesn't work with simple session only encryption, and what I don't
understand is how they both offer assurance and deniability, if the next
time I'm talking with the same guy I can be assured of his identity but
he can later claim that it wasn't him.
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 17:55 +0200, Peter wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Alon Altman wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Oded Arbel wrote:
> >>
> >> It seems like they claim both deniability and and assurance (which is
> >> what you get from signing, except w/o the signing part) at the same
> >> time.
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As far as I understand the law (again, not from reading it), it does not
> list specific algorithms that should be used or specific procedures for
Mistake #1, and counting. I did point out before, that certain MUAs implicitly
sign the message by calcu
On 30/01/07, Geoffrey S. Mendelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:51:41PM +0200, Random Penguin wrote:
> Rumor would have it that Bezeq Benleumi have purchased Actcom for the
> knowledge base and not the customer base. From a business perspective,
> this does make sense. B
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Alon Altman wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Oded Arbel wrote:
It seems like they claim both deniability and and assurance (which is
what you get from signing, except w/o the signing part) at the same
time.
I think that the trick is to give the other party the signing key rig
Hi,
I have a working xmltv setup here. It required some hacking into the
downloader code for Israel. First of all, you should use tvtime which has
xmltv support. Second, you need the tv_grab_il script attached. Third,
you'll need a cron job something like this (here I download twice per week):
Hi,
I have a working xmltv setup here. It required some hacking into the
downloader code for Israel. First of all, you should use tvtime which has
xmltv support. Second, you need the tv_grab_il script attached. Third,
you'll need a cron job something like this (here I download twice per week):
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Oded Arbel wrote:
It seems like they claim both deniability and and assurance (which is
what you get from signing, except w/o the signing part) at the same
time.
I think that the trick is to give the other party the signing key right
after you signed the message.
Alon
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 12:15 +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Deniability and signature are, as far as I can see, mutually
> exclusive.
I wonder how "Off-the-record" ( http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/ ) works
then. I'm not a cryptology expert, but I can tell you that it allows
people to IM each other,
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Alon Altman wrote:
What if I sign my messages with a public key, but include a
statement in
the message that the signature is only for authentication purposes
only and
does not serve as a commitment to anything written in the message?
I don't know.
Alon Altman wrote:
> What if I sign my messages with a public key, but include a
> statement in
> the message that the signature is only for authentication purposes
> only and
> does not serve as a commitment to anything written in the message?
I don't know. It may work. It may not. I am not a la
Michael Vasiliev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. Change your online id to single-letter strings of just one letter,
> Like:
>
>zzz zzz
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suggest you take a look at advanced search syntax of google for a start.
"Google Hacks" and book and j0hnny's website may
What if I sign my messages with a public key, but include a statement in
the message that the signature is only for authentication purposes only and
does not serve as a commitment to anything written in the message?
Alon
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Peter wrote:
Let me expan
Peter wrote:
> Let me expand on this: Not all (more exactly: most) digital signatures
> are digital signatures in this context. In particular, f.ex., signing
> an email with a *private* public key that is shown only to qualified
> individuals on demand (and a court would certainly not qualify) is
>
Hi Muli!
Thanks for the information.
On 2/5/07, Muli Ben-Yehuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 11:35:05AM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/downloads/xen-unstable.hg.tar.gz
>
> is broken. Where can I find the seed repository tarball
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Peter wrote:
I meant, how will this help against the fact that, if you sign your
emails, they are legally binding?
It would not.
Then why did you say it would? /me is confused.
Ahh, now you have reached the opinion of the public ;-) As I pointed
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 11:35:05AM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/downloads/xen-unstable.hg.tar.gz
>
> is broken. Where can I find the seed repository tarball instead?
No idea. You can just clone the repo. Or - you could ask on the
xen-devel mailing li
The Xen Mercurial cheatsheet says:
<
You can point a browser and this and use Hg's web interface to view
revision history, or use it as the nominated source when issuing
"hg init" or "hg pull" commands.
However, to avoid taxing the Mercurial server with a complete pull of
the Xen rep
On Sun, 2007-02-04 at 20:59 +0200, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
> I can confirm the unplugging issue you describe. It's a known fact (Hetz
> already mentioned it on this list a few weeks ago). According to this:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LaptopTestingTeam/Lenovo3000N100_0768
>
> There is a patch which
Peter wrote:
>> I meant, how will this help against the fact that, if you sign your
>> emails, they are legally binding?
> It would not.
Then why did you say it would? /me is confused.
> But then nothing else would.
Not true. Not signing trivial emails would. A recommendation, I might
add, that you
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Peter wrote:
Anyway the short answer seems to be: A digitally signed (with a certificate)
.AND. explicitly undisclaimed [1] email message .MAY. be legally binding .IF.
tested in court under .SOME. jurisdictions.
Peter (or John)
[1]: phew, what a word. 'undisclaimed' ?! Ma
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Peter wrote:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
YTfFYyyfDDk676 (different from time to time of course).
And this will help how?
If there is a harnivore system somewhere triggering on nontext codes
it will start wasing serious time an
39 matches
Mail list logo
